In terms of tactical decisions:
I am happy that Kane was moved to number 3. I'm not sure whether that's down to Hesson or McCullum or Kane himself, but I think it's the correct position for him in ODIs (I'd have him at 5 in tests but that's another story).

The promotion of Elliot made sense at that point in the game. Again, I'm not sure who's decision that was, but I liked it and agreed at the time (not just in hindsight).

The field settings to Smith were quite good.

OTOH, McCullum should be opening. There's enough firepower in the middle order and tail to finish things off. We need an opener who can put us on the front food, rather than require us to rebuild.

We need an opener who can put us on the front food, rather than require us to rebuild.

Interested to hear your choice of dish to start with.

Originally Posted by Athlai

Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.

Originally Posted by Dan

in the future where we're all social justice-y Cribb can ride down the street to pick up some raw milk from Coles on a motorised esky while smoking meth, firing an RPG into the air, and carrying the case of British-import Stella he's polygamously (and privately) married alongside a genderfluid Zambian businessperson and a coke-snorting 18-year-old cyborg girl.

Such as? Not trying to be antagonistic, I didn't watch the game so would be legitimately interested in what people think. Thought he captained very smartly in the first game though.

of the top of my head, the field settings for Williamsons bowling was pretty poor, the lack of a cover fielder (i think) allowed Smith and Ingram to rotate the strike effortlessly, and let of all the pressure at one end

And we were without Taylor, Southee and Vettori (also Ryder if you want to cast the net wider). Losing to a team with 2 specialist bowlers, Grant Elliott at 4 and a Colin Munro in the side? Some cause for concern, in that for a team that's 1 or 2 in the world you can't tape together a bunch of rag tag cats like we could and pull of a series victory.

And we were without Taylor, Southee and Vettori (also Ryder if you want to cast the net wider). Losing to a team with 2 specialist bowlers, Grant Elliott at 4 and a Colin Munro in the side? Some cause for concern, in that for a team that's 1 or 2 in the world you can't tape together a bunch of rag tag cats like we could and pull of a series victory.

Think two specialist bowlers are irrelevant if half the team gets run out.

Sorry Ginger but any team can win on its day in T20. Zim. has beaten Australia in a WC, Holland has beaten England. You get on the wrong side of the toss and fall for a lowly total and there's not the time there is even in 50/50, let alone tests which often allows the better team to recover. Also T20 is often decided on the back of one stellar performance. To win a test match, and even an ODI, you have to have more contributors.

This is only partially true. While I do think that test cricket is the most demanding format, there are skills required in one day cricket that are simply different from test match cricket.

There is a certain type of run-rate pressure in ODI cricket that is absent in test cricket.

Likewise, innocuous deliveries in test cricket become pressure-building dot balls in ODI cricket, and the line has to be much tighter.

So I think it's a little simplistic to say that the longer form is the pinnacle of the game in terms of talent.

The commentators though also made the point the other night that a bit of experience and a bit of ability in a number of disciplines doesn't go astray in the longer form of the game. The kiwis have players who bat well down the order in ODIs, field well and can roll their arm over and hold their own with the ball. Nonetheless test cricket is more of a specialists game. For instance Franklin's bowling doesn't really stand out and he gets found out by the likes of Steyn and Morkel. Ditto guys like Mills and Elliott, yet in the shorter forms of the game they make handy contributions.

Agree that there is a pressure with dot balls in ODIs and this is where canny experience comes into play. It's usually not that difficult to rotate the strike and score singles and seasoned campaigners can do this. However the same guys in test cricket won't necessarily survive when their role is to counter bowlers bowling to take wickets and with the fields to back this, not bowlers just bowling to contain and minimize the damage.

NZ showed a lot more poise the other night and it was noticeable that some of the SA players who hadn't played a lot of international cricket panicked and suffered at the hands of some excellent NZ fielding. Again excellent ground fielding in ODIs is vital and sometimes teams who aren't particularly great in test cricket can gain a bit of an advantage here by saving runs etc. The latter is not so important in test cricket where the main difference in fielding is taking the vital catches.

When coaches of struggling teams take over the reins, often the first thing they do is try to improve the fielding. This is something for instance Bobby Simpson swore by. NZ has generally been a very good fielding team if it can't always compete in the batting and bowling stakes.

Surely also it can't be a coincidence that all of Sri Lanka, New Zealand and India who struggled in their test series have either won or drawn the limited overs one.

...
NZ showed a lot more poise the other night and it was noticeable that some of the SA players who hadn't played a lot of international cricket panicked and suffered at the hands of some excellent NZ fielding. Again excellent ground fielding in ODIs is vital and sometimes teams who aren't particularly great in test cricket can gain a bit of an advantage here by saving runs etc. The latter is not so important in test cricket where the main difference in fielding is taking the vital catches.

When coaches of struggling teams take over the reins, often the first thing they do is try to improve the fielding. This is something for instance Bobby Simpson swore by. NZ has generally been a very good fielding team if it can't always compete in the batting and bowling stakes.

Yes, Steve Rixon was good in that respect too when he took over the NZ side in the mid 90's. NZ in the mid-late 80's had a strong test side with a solid top order, and an incredible bowler in Hadlee, but its ODI record wasn't as impressive. In the 90's, without Hadlee, NZ struggled in tests, but competed well in ODI's with accurate medium pace bowlers who weren't so great at tests (Larsen, Pringle) & excellent fielders (eg Chris Harris).